Page 482 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some time. I prosecuted that case in about 1984-85—20 years ago or more. This problem has certainly been around and we now have the statistics to show just how prevalent it is. It is five times more prevalent than drink-driving in Victoria. There is nothing to show that that would not necessarily be the case in Canberra as well.
It is crucial that the Assembly backs Mr Pratt’s bill. By doing so we will be saving lives—not only the lives of innocent victims but also perhaps the lives of people stupid enough to take illegal drugs. All in all, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation deserving of this Assembly’s support. For the government to dillydally and try to find excuses not to back it—and that is all it is doing—is pathetic. A responsible government should accept good legislation from any source in this Assembly. That has often been the situation in the past.
Perhaps because we now have a majority government it does not want to give credit where credit is due, and it should do so. The government is belittling itself by adopting such a mean attitude. This is good legislation. Why not pass it? By all means put in a sunset clause if you want to see how it pans out in reality. Of course it needs to be adjusted to suit our local conditions, but it is sensible legislation that protects the community and also protects individuals who might be driving under the influence of intoxicating drugs. It is very important legislation which is deserving of support. I am very disappointed to see the government not supporting it, although I must say I am not surprised.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (4.25), in reply: I stand to close the debate. In responding to what I think is the major concern coming out of the government and, I think, the Greens about some of the technical aspects of drug testing, I want to make a couple of points before I sum up. I appreciate Dr Foskey’s advance notification to me that she will not be supporting the bill. I understand her concerns about the drug testing technicalities and I want to address some of those concerns now. The detail I am about to give basically highlights the already existing law. Testing of drivers for drugs already exists in the ACT, along with the types of substances tested for. There is a comprehensive list in schedule 1 of the current Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 which outlines what constitutes drugs under the current act. In total there are 17 categories of drugs that are currently considered drugs for the purpose of drug impairment under the current ACT law.
My bill is not so much about introducing testing for drugs and how those drugs are tested for—that law already exists. My bill effectively allows for random roadside drug testing. We need to mobilise the existing model to allow more random testing to create much more of a deterrence. Current arrangements in the ACT see us only testing for drugs where it is suspected that a person may be under the influence of drugs or where an accident has already occurred; it is not randomly done. The growing statistics, including a recent AAMI survey, are readily available and show that, across Australia, at least one in four drivers under the age of 25 thinks it is okay to drive under the influence of recreational drugs. It is amazing how often that 25 per cent factor is replicated in other state reviews. I have seen other reports, which I do not necessarily think are all that reliable, which would indicate that it is about the same measure here.
In order to better protect lives on Canberra’s roads, it is highly important that this issue be addressed. I think we have to assume that there is a significant number of people
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .